​worldanimalnews.com/victory-ann-arbor-michigan-becomes-the-first-city-in-the-midwest-to-ban-the-sale-of-fur/

Ann Arbor, Michigan has voted unanimously to ban the sale of new fur moving forward with a one year phase out & exemption for pelts already in use as well as pelts used by tribal communities. This is monumental news as Michigan is the 6th highest fur producing state in the country, raking in nearly 20 million dollars last year. 

We know the horrors of fur. We know that millions of innocent mink, fox, and other animals are kept in confinement, typically in less than acceptable living conditions throughout their short lives. We know that these animals are bred solely for fur, exploiting them for their pelts and discarding their corpses like trash. The industry has abused hundreds of millions of animals for fashion, novelty products that no one actually NEEDS for their survival. Fur is disgusting, exploitative, and wholly unnecessary. The people of this planet are slowly awakening to the needless cruelty of fur.

Fur is an industry that is dying, and rightly so. We must end our continued exploitation of innocent animals for fashion. Fur is done, and with every ban announced, one more nail in the coffin of an industry rooted in cruelty and torture.

​Congrats Ann Arbor <3

​worldanimalnews.com/breaking-kansas-ag-gag-law-is-struck-down-by-the-u-s-count-of-appeals-ruling-that-it-goes-against-the-first-amendment/

Kansas' Ag-Gag Law was struck down for violating the 'First Amendment" after a 2018 lawsuit from environmentalists, food safety advocacy groups, and animal welfare activists challenged the law. In the ruling, it was stated that Kansas may not legislate speech in order to silence views and that videos & undercover investigations of slaughterhouses / factory farms remained a matter of public concern.

We must stop protecting the animal agriculture industry at the expense of living, breathing, feeling animals. While they are simply part of a gruesome system, they are still deserving of empathy and respect and should not be abused prior to being slaughtered. If these facilities are not participating in these atrocities, they should have absolutely no problem with allowing activists inside, but that's exactly why Ag-Gag laws exist. I've reported on animal cruelty for over 7 years now and regardless whether we're looking at pig, chicken, or cow factory farms, the documented abuse is rampant with all of them. Ag-gag laws prevent consumers from being informed on what exactly happens behind those walls leading up to that meat ending up in the grocery store.

The factory farming industry is under repeated attack whether by environmentalists, conservationists, or animal welfare activists. Instead of working to tackle the cruelty happening in this industry, they'd rather block us from ever seeing or documenting it. This in itself is enough of a reason to question your meat consumption, isn't it? I would never buy a new car from a business that no online presence, no reviews, perhaps a shady salesman...so why would anyone buy meat from a company that refuses to let you see how "humane" their operations are? It couldn't be more blatantly obvious that the factory farming industry is acknowledging their continued allowance of animal cruelty. 

Ag-Gag laws are disgusting and they should be struck down everywhere. Stop trying to prevent the exposure of abuse and do something to tackle the problems within the industry. We need to stop pandering to the factory farming industry and start holding them to task on industry-set welfare standards. If we don't, that wonderful "steak" on your plate will continue to come with a horrific backstory; one of being tortured, abused, and neglected right up until the minute their sad life is ended in an instant.

​worldanimalnews.com/court-blocks-massive-arctic-oil-project-in-alaska-after-officials-failed-to-properly-examine-risks-to-climate-polar-bears/

An Arctic oil drilling project that was initially approved by the Trump administration has been blocked by the Federal Court in Alaska after the project failed to properly examine the effects of oil drilling on the climate and endangered polar bears. The decision comes after the Biden administration initially was to review this project, only to try and move it along without review. 

First of all, we've all seen the disaster that an oil spill causes an ecosystem and how devastating it is to local wildlife. We also know that drilling for oil can disrupt underwater species in their hunting & communicating, throwing off their senses and disrupting their livelihoods. At a time when Arctic sea ice is melting and Arctic species are already facing perils to their survival, the last thing we should be considering is going in and disrupting their existence even further in search of more resources. Allowing oil drilling would undoubtedly cause further perils to endangered species like Polar Bears, who already face insurmountable perils to their survival. 

When it comes to Endangered species, we should ONLY be looking at ways to make their existences easier and give them a fighting chance at a future. It's ignorant and negligent of us to even consider disrupting the Arctic wildlife in search of more oil when these species are already up against incredible challenges. Humanity has a rather hypocritical approach to conservation; we drill, we cut down trees, we poison waterways etc., and then when these species start to die off and become endangered, we slowly offer them protections. It's vicious cycle of manipulation that needs to end if we are truly going to prevent the inevitable extinction of hundreds of thousands of species because of our negligence.

The Arctic MUST remain untouched. We cannot truly claim to care about the environment or endangered species while simultaneously looking at ways to further imperil them. 

​worldanimalnews.com/breaking-south-korea-legally-acknowledges-animals-as-sentient-beings-not-objects-in-new-amendment-to-the-civil-act/

South Korea is set to legally recognize animals as "sentient beings" as opposed to objects under the law. This amendment to the Civil Act will improve welfare standards for animals and give them new rights that better protect them. This move comes as companion animals are significantly on the rise throughout the country.

You can pick "things" up, throw "things", kick and punch "things"...now replace "things with "animals", and it sounds significantly more alarming. Sentience will help the courts address animal cruelty  properly, but also issues sentences that better reflect the nature of the crime committed. I've spoken on this before, but paltry fines or bans on owning animals are not deterrents. We need punishments that can & do include jail sentences for abuse to animals. The law needs to set examples out of those who commit these crimes, otherwise the next arsehole who wants to abuse a cat / dog will do so without regard for any kind of significant punishment.

There's no denying animal sentience, it's simply getting courts across the globe to recognize it as such. The sooner we do so, the sooner we can truly tackle animal abuse, neglect, and cruelty on the scale that it is needed. South Korea has taken the appropriate step to start better protecting animals and that's what's important!

​worldanimalnews.com/breaking-uk-government-announces-details-of-the-countrys-new-plan-to-ban-the-brutal-shark-fin-trade/

The UK has announced plans to ban the shark fin trade as part of an Animal Welfare overhaul. The ban would see the import of detached shark fins & shark fin products banned and would help to protect vulnerable shark species who are at risk of heading towards extinction.

While there is no way to truly know how many sharks remain in the ocean, what we do know is that approximately 100 million sharks are slaughtered every year. Overfishing is destroying our oceans and continues to put sharks and other non-target species at risk. Couple that with the demand for shark fin soup and we're looking at tens of millions of sharks killed every year. Although we can only predict how many sharks remain, we can only assume that slaughtering nearly 100 million on a yearly basis is having a negative impact on their populations. Much like every other species we slaughter in the wild in mass quantities, where will we go when we've completely decimated them? I honestly don't believe this thought crosses the mind of those who are helping to destroy their populations, but it most certainly should. 

Every single species on the endangered species list was at one time abundant in the wild until humans had their go of things. We are the plague of this planet and are wholly responsible for the perils other species on our planet face. We take everything we want without regard and then rush to offer these same species "protections" to prevent them from going extinct. Then, we spend decades working on conservation only to remove them from the Endangered Species List and open them up to the exact same perils they faced prior to being protected. We're so warped and completely out of touch with the destruction we are causing.

Shark fin soup is ridiculous. It's not a necessity and it's responsible for a large chunk of those 100 million sharks that are killed by humans every year. The UK is right to ban the import of detached fins and the rest our planet should be jumping on board. We're not talking necessities, we're talking novelties and sharks are being killed in such mass quantities for something so utterly ridiculous. The only thing to do is ban shark fin soup and ban the practice of shark finning globally. There's no excuse for consuming a soup that is embroiled in so much cruelty outside of our warped sense of entitlement. 

​www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-58186176

The Scottish SPCA is calling for the Dangerous Dogs Act to address behaviour as opposed to targeting specific breeds after painfully having to euthanize healthy, friendly, and well-mannered dogs due to breed specific legislations. The SSPCA is hoping that on the 30th anniversary of the Dangerous Dogs Act that there will be changes to the law that protect healthy, well behaved animals from being euthanized simply because they are of a certain breed that was deemed "dangerous".

I've spoken out about these discriminatory bans in the past as there are breed specific bans all over Canada and frankly, all over the world that are rooted in fear rather than facts. Any dog can be violent and aggressive if it is raised to be that way. It's unfortunately pitbulls that are exploited for violence because they are strong and have the potential to be violent if raised to be that way. Pitbulls have endured relentless attacks in the media that have promoted the idea that they are ALL violent, aggressive, and not safe which has really been the nail in the coffin for the breed. The media has done an excellent job sensationalizing the violence in order to fit the narrative that this breed is wholly unsafe and undeserving of a chance at love. This couldn't be further from the truth.

As I said, any breed can be aggressive if they are raised by humans who exploit them. They can be violent if they are raised by humans who abuse them, neglect them, or train them to be vicious. All animals are the product of their environment and a result of the humans who care for them. Behaviour is directly linked to their experiences and we have to start addressing the root cause for animal aggression instead of a blanket ban that sees innocent, well-mannered dogs euthanized simply because of their breed. It's completely ridiculous to label a breed as dangerous in order to fit a narrative that will allow them to be euthanized in order to "protect humans" when it is in fact humans who have made them aggressive / violent.

These breed specific bans are discriminate and do nothing to tackle irresponsible dog ownership. What we must be doing is addressing these situations on a case by case basis and only labelling an individual as violent after being assessed and deemed so by the proper authorities. We shouldn't be euthanizing loving animals without even giving them a chance to prove that they are not violent. It's irresponsible to euthanize animals simply because of their appearance and only fuels the unwarranted fear of pitbulls when in most cases, they couldn't be more loving.

We must end these discriminatory bans on breeds and start looking at behaviour. We must also start investigating the humans who are supposedly "caring" for these often abused and neglected animals. Killing healthy, loving animals is not responsible breed management, it's negligent and disgusting. It's time to lift the bans and start letting loving animals find homes instead of euthanizing them simply for existing.

​worldanimalnews.com/breaking-nigeria-customs-arrest-three-suspected-wildlife-traffickers-after-more-than-7-1-tons-of-pangolin-scales-846kg-of-ivory-was-seized/

3 suspected wildlife traffickers in Nigeria were arrested by Nigerian customs after the discovery of 7.1 tons of endangered pangolin scales and 846 kg. of ivory. This is now the 9th largest seizure of pangolin scales since 2019 and paints a very clear picture of how grave the situation continues to be for elephants, pangolins, rhinos, and all of Africa's most endangered species.

We need to be investing more of our resources on an International level to properly protect wildlife and target wildlife trafficking. What we're currently doing is not enough as these stories indicate that  wildlife trafficking is prevalent and continues to wreak havoc on Africa's wildlife. If we don't aggressively target illegal wildlife trafficking and shut down all markets for these products, elephants and pangolins will undoubtedly go extinct in the wild. 

Head to the link at the top of this post for the original story.

​www.dailysabah.com/life/environment/wild-african-lion-populations-dwindle-as-activists-raise-red-flag

Activists are sounding the alarm on African Lions, as their populations have dwindled rapidly in recent years. In the past 25 years, we've seen a significant reduction in the amount of wild lions and it can be wholly attributed to the actions (or lack thereof) of humans. The report claims that if drastic measures to protect lions are not immediately put in place, African lions will undoubtedly continue to plunge towards extinction until they are gone forever.

What urgent action are we talking about when it comes to saving lions from extinction? First of all, the illegal wildlife trade needs to be more aggressively tackled with harsher punishments issued to those who participate in the illegal slaughter of lions. Secondly, local communities need to be given the tools to live amongst lions, tools that will help them prevent conflicts that result in the death of endangered lions. If livestock is drawing lions in, how do we keep them out without resorting to slaughtering them? Larger perimeter blockades to protect livestock perhaps? Regardless, investigating options and funneling resources into these communities so that they can protect themselves and their animals without having to kill lions.

Also, I think we need to really look at trophy hunting and the message it is sending about the importance of wild lions. First of all, if a country is telling us that lions are endangered and in trouble while simultaneously selling the opportunity to slaughter them for the right price, I believe this sends the wrong message about the importance of lions. Secondly, we've heard for ages that the money from trophy hunting is funneled into local communities / conservation but the fact is, lions are disappearing. This money should be helping to protect local communities and aid in their coexistence with lions. This money should be helping to protect lions through aggressive anti-poaching tactics. Unfortunately, despite many years of claiming this to be true, lions continue to plunge towards extinction.

Humanity is hypocritical to the highest degree. We sound the alarm on the possibility of lion extinction while selling opportunities to shoot & kill them for money. We continue on about protecting more of their habitat but continue to grow at rapid rates and take more of their habitat away from them. We issue them protected land but do very little about those who lure lions off of protected lands to shoot and kill them for sport. We need an upgrade on how we're approaching a situation of this severity because when it comes to extinction, there is no going back.
​

• BAN TROPHY HUNTING
• FUNNEL MORE RESOURCES INTO ANTI-POACHING
• LIST MORE OF THE LION'S HABITAT AS PROTECTED
• HELP LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN LIVING WITH LIONS

Lions don't have time for us to make empty promises and take lackluster action. Extinction is inevitable if we don't act aggressively to tackle the many perils that lions face.

​worldanimalnews.com/new-u-s-bill-the-refuge-from-cruel-trapping-act-would-protect-animals-wild-and-domestic-from-cruel-inhumane-trapping-with-national-wildlife-refuges/

The Refuge From Cruel Trapping Act was recently introduced in the United States. The bill would prevent the use of cruel, body-gripping traps on wildlife refuges and would only allow exemptions if non-lethal methods had been documented as having failed. Despite overwhelming support to ban the use of these horrendous traps, they are still permitted on nearly half of the United State's 566 designated wildlife refuges.

On top of the wildlife these traps are intended for, humans and domestic animals can also inadvertently engage with these traps. As I mentioned, these traps are indiscriminate in their targets, they'll snap on anything that engages which puts the safety of not only wildlife, but those who visit these protected lands in jeopardy. It's not rocket science to determine that these traps are very unsafe and don't belong anywhere near a wildlife sanctuary. What kind of a "sanctuary" is littered with traps that are so powerful and cruel in nature? It's completely contradictory to the purpose of a wildlife refuge to have it littered with traps intended to hurt / kill wildlife in a cruel and violent manner. 

I think it's pretty straight forward here folks, if something is listed as a "refuge", "sanctuary", or "protected", the last thing that should be scattered around are traps intended to inflict serious damage / death. It's inexcusable that these traps have somehow been permitted to be used when we know that they will inadvertently trap and kill anything that engages with them. It's wholly unsafe for those who visit these refuges and especially dangerous for the native wildlife. 

The only solution is to ban the use of these traps on wildlife refuges. Learn more through the link attached at the top of this post.

​What do y'all think? Is it as obvious as I believe it is that these traps have absolutely no place on protected lands?